Trump Makes Full-Throated Attack On Obama!

[Maryland Patriot]

OMG!!!

An attack on the first black President....Barack Hussein Obama!

This speech today can be seen as nothing less:



"This is a national crisis, and it is the job of the next President to work with our governors and mayors to address this crisis and save African-American lives.

Last year, we saw a 17% rise in violent crime in our fifty largest cities. Homicides are up nearly 50% in Washington, D.C. and more than 60% in Baltimore.

More than 3,000 have been shot in Chicago so far this year alone.

Nationwide, approximately 60% of murder victims under the age of 22 are African-American.

Every single American in this country is entitled to live in a safe community. The violence against our citizens, and our law enforcement, must be brought to an end.

The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots, are law-abiding African-American residents who live in these communities. It is their jobs, housing markets, schools and economic conditions that will suffer – and the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration."
Trump: We Need A National Anti-Crime Effort Based On Rudy Giuliani's Success In New York




What possible response can Obama or his coterie of supporters raise???

Hey, shit for brains, why don't you explain to Trump he's running against Clinton and not Obama?

hey bigger shit for brains, where was your helpful insight to the left when obama was running against McCain and not Bush.
At least in this case the whore hillary sided with the little dark kenyan and is planning to continue his destructive path.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Armed Koreans dissuade rioters....







@1:19
My peeps keepin' it real!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

He's the first biracial president...

Meaning he does an equally inept job for both blacks and whites?

So stipulated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What are you people, apologist, for folks that can't lead their own lives without putting themselves at risk for their decisions in life?

Did you think that post made sense???

If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OMG!!!

An attack on the first black President....Barack Hussein Obama!

This speech today can be seen as nothing less:



"This is a national crisis, and it is the job of the next President to work with our governors and mayors to address this crisis and save African-American lives.

Last year, we saw a 17% rise in violent crime in our fifty largest cities. Homicides are up nearly 50% in Washington, D.C. and more than 60% in Baltimore.

More than 3,000 have been shot in Chicago so far this year alone.

Nationwide, approximately 60% of murder victims under the age of 22 are African-American.

Every single American in this country is entitled to live in a safe community. The violence against our citizens, and our law enforcement, must be brought to an end.

The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots, are law-abiding African-American residents who live in these communities. It is their jobs, housing markets, schools and economic conditions that will suffer – and the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration."
Trump: We Need A National Anti-Crime Effort Based On Rudy Giuliani's Success In New York




What possible response can Obama or his coterie of supporters raise???

Crime is down.

Depends on where.

1. "....according to mid-year figures released by the Major Cities Chiefs Association,homicides and other violent crime are up in many large American cities since 2015. The figures were publicized by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) show an increase in every violent crime category in Los Angeles County, Las Vegas, Chicago, San Antonio and San Jose.

President Obama responded to Trump, saying, “When it comes to crime, the violent crime rate in America has been lowered during my presidency and any time in the last three, four decades.” However, Obama added that “it is true that we’ve seen an uptick in murders and violent crime in some cities this year.” "
Despite Eric Holder's claims, violent crime increased under Obama



2. From Trump's speech:
".... a 17% rise in violent crime in our fifty largest cities. Homicides are up nearly 50% in Washington, D.C. and more than 60% in Baltimore."

 

[FA_Q2]

He is VERY much running against Obama, dumbfuck.

Wait until you read your ballot on Nov 8, you ******* fool, and read the bloody OP now you IDIOT!

wow, dude ....................................

Wait until you read your ballot on Nov 8, you ******* fool, and read the bloody OP now you IDIOT!

Because, poop for brains.....shriallry wishes to continue his failed policies. Duh....

Wait until you read your ballot on Nov 8, you ******* fool, and read the bloody OP now you IDIOT!

Because he is running against the democrats and that includes Obama - a man that is going to be shilling for Hillary as well. Same way that Bush was relentlessly attacked in '08 - the current president has a huge impact on the campaign and the party in general. That includes the candidate that wants to replace them.

Wait until you read your ballot on Nov 8, you ******* fool, and read the bloody OP now you IDIOT!

The point went over your head. obama has done nothing for them, things are even worse. Pointing to the failed Democrat administration is totally relevant. Hillary could die tomorrow, the party is the problem. Hillary is just the hand puppet.

Wait until you read your ballot on Nov 8, you ******* fool, and read the bloody OP now you IDIOT!

Are all of you ***** to Gawd Damn poor to pay attention to what was written in the OP and stay on the ******* point rather than trying to sharp shoot with stupid failed propaganda and talking points that is imbedded in your lemming like tiny brains?

Tell me specifically how Hillary's proposals for handling the violence will be different than Obama's approach. I'll just leave it at that.

You tell me specifically what the **** that has to do with my post AND the OP! The answer is simple...NOT A ******* THING. Stay on topic and desist from trolling you left handed, wanking, imbecilic fool!

This is an interesting statement from you considering that you have said nothing at all that pertains to the topic, been showed how the topic relates and have done nothing but sling insults.

 

[FA_Q2]

With all these shootings. We should target gun owners ! How would you like that ?

what shootings? the ones with illegal guns? I agree go after the illegal guns. Do you know how to do that? it's simple.

"Illegal" guns start off as legal guns . People ain't making guns in their basement.

We should be able to raid gun owners homes and make sure their guns are still there .

I've asked you kindly not to be a dunce....

...then you write "We should be able to raid gun owners homes and make sure their guns are still there."


Here are some statistics that indicate what a fool you are:

1. Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html ( .00086%)

Do you understand what 0.00086% criminality means?????

But you are ok wh stopping and frisking people on the street who have done nothing?

A gun registry is a violation of the con, but stop n frisk is not ?

Do you think the Constitution is a suicide pact?

That is a pointless platitude. Ending stop and frisk policies has nothing to do with 'suicide' pacts. It is directly against the constitution. Should you believe that your rights protected by the constitution are in need of infringement then the proper solution is NOT to ignore it - it is to get it changed to reflect that need.


You either support the constitution and follow it (and if you want this to be a free nation you must) or you agree with the liberal interpretation of the constitution being a living document that can be re-interpreted to mean whatever you want. Don't hide behind the 'suicide' pack platitude - that is for the weak minded.

 

[PoliticalChic]

what shootings? the ones with illegal guns? I agree go after the illegal guns. Do you know how to do that? it's simple.

"Illegal" guns start off as legal guns . People ain't making guns in their basement.

We should be able to raid gun owners homes and make sure their guns are still there .

I've asked you kindly not to be a dunce....

...then you write "We should be able to raid gun owners homes and make sure their guns are still there."


Here are some statistics that indicate what a fool you are:

1. Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html ( .00086%)

Do you understand what 0.00086% criminality means?????

But you are ok wh stopping and frisking people on the street who have done nothing?

A gun registry is a violation of the con, but stop n frisk is not ?

Do you think the Constitution is a suicide pact?

That is a pointless platitude. Ending stop and frisk policies has nothing to do with 'suicide' pacts. It is directly against the constitution. Should you believe that your rights protected by the constitution are in need of infringement then the proper solution is NOT to ignore it - it is to get it changed to reflect that need.


You either support the constitution and follow it (and if you want this to be a free nation you must) or you agree with the liberal interpretation of the constitution being a living document that can be re-interpreted to mean whatever you want. Don't hide behind the 'suicide' pack platitude - that is for the weak minded.

Where does the Constitution deny authority to the police to stop individuals deemed suspicious,suggesting carrying an illegal weapon?

It doesn't.




But, I can education you on the issue:

"In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
Ibid.



As for "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"....
The constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here, a heartwarming episode explains how to 'cap' criminal activity (pun intended)...

A vid showing a little Asian woman in Georgia blasting three armed home invaders.


"Security video in Georgia home captures woman firing gun at armed intruders
Gwinnett police said the the suspects kicked in the door of the home overnight on Sept. 16 and went room to room looking for cash. Instead they found a 36-year-old restaurant owner still in her PJs and firing a gun, Fox 5 Atlanta reports.

“She did not know the men and it’s clear that they weren’t invited into her home,” Gwinnett police spokesman Deon Washington said. “She simply exercised her right to defend her property.”
Security Video In Georgia Home Captures Woman Firing Gun At Armed Intruders

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC makes a deep throated defense of Trump, the rapist. Ewwwwww.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Illegal" guns start off as legal guns . People ain't making guns in their basement.

We should be able to raid gun owners homes and make sure their guns are still there .

I've asked you kindly not to be a dunce....

...then you write "We should be able to raid gun owners homes and make sure their guns are still there."


Here are some statistics that indicate what a fool you are:

1. Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html ( .00086%)

Do you understand what 0.00086% criminality means?????

But you are ok wh stopping and frisking people on the street who have done nothing?

A gun registry is a violation of the con, but stop n frisk is not ?

Do you think the Constitution is a suicide pact?

That is a pointless platitude. Ending stop and frisk policies has nothing to do with 'suicide' pacts. It is directly against the constitution. Should you believe that your rights protected by the constitution are in need of infringement then the proper solution is NOT to ignore it - it is to get it changed to reflect that need.


You either support the constitution and follow it (and if you want this to be a free nation you must) or you agree with the liberal interpretation of the constitution being a living document that can be re-interpreted to mean whatever you want. Don't hide behind the 'suicide' pack platitude - that is for the weak minded.

Where does the Constitution deny authority to the police to stop individuals deemed suspicious,suggesting carrying an illegal weapon?

It doesn't.

Yes it does. The constitution protects people from the state simply stopping perfectly law abiding citizens without cause. Interestingly enough you cite a case that states stop and frisk is not constitutional:

But, I can education you on the issue:

"In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
Ibid.

briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity

That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion. It simply allows the police the power to stop anyone at any time and search them even when there is literally no evidence or suspicion of a crime. THAT is what made those stop illegal as that is exactly how the policy was implemented. Should there be a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the 'stop and frisk' policy is irrelevant - the police already have the power to stop and search the individual in question. The only purpose of the policy was to extend those searches to individuals where a reasonable suspicion does not exist.

As for "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"....
The constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.

No, it actually does not. Under that silly definition, the government can suspend any and all rights whenever it feels like it because it knows what is best for you and can keep you safe. The PEOPLE must balance those restrictions with the need for survival and then CHANGE the constitution when it is necessary.

When did you start believing in the 'living and breathing' constitution political chick?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've asked you kindly not to be a dunce....

...then you write "We should be able to raid gun owners homes and make sure their guns are still there."


Here are some statistics that indicate what a fool you are:

1. Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html ( .00086%)

Do you understand what 0.00086% criminality means?????

But you are ok wh stopping and frisking people on the street who have done nothing?

A gun registry is a violation of the con, but stop n frisk is not ?

Do you think the Constitution is a suicide pact?

That is a pointless platitude. Ending stop and frisk policies has nothing to do with 'suicide' pacts. It is directly against the constitution. Should you believe that your rights protected by the constitution are in need of infringement then the proper solution is NOT to ignore it - it is to get it changed to reflect that need.


You either support the constitution and follow it (and if you want this to be a free nation you must) or you agree with the liberal interpretation of the constitution being a living document that can be re-interpreted to mean whatever you want. Don't hide behind the 'suicide' pack platitude - that is for the weak minded.

Where does the Constitution deny authority to the police to stop individuals deemed suspicious,suggesting carrying an illegal weapon?

It doesn't.

Yes it does. The constitution protects people from the state simply stopping perfectly law abiding citizens without cause. Interestingly enough you cite a case that states stop and frisk is not constitutional:

But, I can education you on the issue:

"In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
Ibid.

briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity

That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion. It simply allows the police the power to stop anyone at any time and search them even when there is literally no evidence or suspicion of a crime. THAT is what made those stop illegal as that is exactly how the policy was implemented. Should there be a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the 'stop and frisk' policy is irrelevant - the police already have the power to stop and search the individual in question. The only purpose of the policy was to extend those searches to individuals where a reasonable suspicion does not exist.

As for "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"....
The constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.

No, it actually does not. Under that silly definition, the government can suspend any and all rights whenever it feels like it because it knows what is best for you and can keep you safe. The PEOPLE must balance those restrictions with the need for survival and then CHANGE the constitution when it is necessary.

When did you start believing in the 'living and breathing' constitution political chick?

1. "That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion."
False.



2. I explained the meaning of "The Constitutioin is not a suicide pact."
I provided the Supreme Court Decision that provides police with the authority to stop those whom they deem suspicious.

There are folks for whom reality is not a factor in their world views....and you appear to be one.




3. I wonder if you would care to explain, and address the following:

a. "Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population.

Blacks are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean.

Who is killing them?

Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement



b. And this....

"Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses.

Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime.

[Don't even bother looking for Asian crime statistics.]

These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned tominority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.

c. The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'



Any 'reasonable suspicion' in the above?

 

[Geaux4it]

OMG!!!

An attack on the first black President....Barack Hussein Obama!

This speech today can be seen as nothing less:



"This is a national crisis, and it is the job of the next President to work with our governors and mayors to address this crisis and save African-American lives.

Last year, we saw a 17% rise in violent crime in our fifty largest cities. Homicides are up nearly 50% in Washington, D.C. and more than 60% in Baltimore.

More than 3,000 have been shot in Chicago so far this year alone.

Nationwide, approximately 60% of murder victims under the age of 22 are African-American.

Every single American in this country is entitled to live in a safe community. The violence against our citizens, and our law enforcement, must be brought to an end.

The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots, are law-abiding African-American residents who live in these communities. It is their jobs, housing markets, schools and economic conditions that will suffer – and the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration."
Trump: We Need A National Anti-Crime Effort Based On Rudy Giuliani's Success In New York




What possible response can Obama or his coterie of supporters raise???

Hey, shit for brains, why don't you explain to Trump he's running against Clinton and not Obama?

Because Hillary I mean Her Thighness, is running on Obama's legacy of failures

-Geaux

 

[FA_Q2]

But you are ok wh stopping and frisking people on the street who have done nothing?

A gun registry is a violation of the con, but stop n frisk is not ?

Do you think the Constitution is a suicide pact?

That is a pointless platitude. Ending stop and frisk policies has nothing to do with 'suicide' pacts. It is directly against the constitution. Should you believe that your rights protected by the constitution are in need of infringement then the proper solution is NOT to ignore it - it is to get it changed to reflect that need.


You either support the constitution and follow it (and if you want this to be a free nation you must) or you agree with the liberal interpretation of the constitution being a living document that can be re-interpreted to mean whatever you want. Don't hide behind the 'suicide' pack platitude - that is for the weak minded.

Where does the Constitution deny authority to the police to stop individuals deemed suspicious,suggesting carrying an illegal weapon?

It doesn't.

Yes it does. The constitution protects people from the state simply stopping perfectly law abiding citizens without cause. Interestingly enough you cite a case that states stop and frisk is not constitutional:

But, I can education you on the issue:

"In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
Ibid.

briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity

That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion. It simply allows the police the power to stop anyone at any time and search them even when there is literally no evidence or suspicion of a crime. THAT is what made those stop illegal as that is exactly how the policy was implemented. Should there be a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the 'stop and frisk' policy is irrelevant - the police already have the power to stop and search the individual in question. The only purpose of the policy was to extend those searches to individuals where a reasonable suspicion does not exist.

As for "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"....
The constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.

No, it actually does not. Under that silly definition, the government can suspend any and all rights whenever it feels like it because it knows what is best for you and can keep you safe. The PEOPLE must balance those restrictions with the need for survival and then CHANGE the constitution when it is necessary.

When did you start believing in the 'living and breathing' constitution political chick?

1. "That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion."
False.

Just because you say it is false does not make it so. It is a FACT that the policy does not require resonable suspicion as that is why it was struck.

2. I explained the meaning of "The Constitutioin is not a suicide pact."
I provided the Supreme Court Decision that provides police with the authority to stop those whom they deem suspicious.

There are folks for whom reality is not a factor in their world views....and you appear to be one.

Personal insults, the last bastion of those without an argument. try again. I explained the problem with the case you cited.

3. I wonder if you would care to explain, and address the following:

a. "Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population.

Blacks are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean.

Who is killing them?

Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement



b. And this....

"Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses.

Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime.

[Don't even bother looking for Asian crime statistics.]

These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned tominority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.

c. The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'

Explain or address what? None of that is material to the discussion at hand. I have no issues with the fact that black people are stopped more than other races. I have no issue with the fact that police have a larger presence in high crime arias as they should and certainly do not care what the race of the individuals in those neighborhoods are. None of that is the problem with stop and frisk. The problem is that we have a constitution that protects the rights of Americans and that includes the protection from the state simply stopping you and performing a search without just cause.

You still refuse to acknowledge that inconvenient fact.

Any 'reasonable suspicion' in the above?

Nope, there is no reasonable suspicion above. It applies to all people and reasonable suspicion does not mean that a cop can stop and search you simply because of who you are without any evidence of a crime. You essentially just said that being black is enough evidence to warrant a search. That is not just asinine but it is a big government position that would give the state the ability to completely disregard your rights at virtually any time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OMG!!!

An attack on the first black President....Barack Hussein Obama!

This speech today can be seen as nothing less:



"This is a national crisis, and it is the job of the next President to work with our governors and mayors to address this crisis and save African-American lives.

Last year, we saw a 17% rise in violent crime in our fifty largest cities. Homicides are up nearly 50% in Washington, D.C. and more than 60% in Baltimore.

More than 3,000 have been shot in Chicago so far this year alone.

Nationwide, approximately 60% of murder victims under the age of 22 are African-American.

Every single American in this country is entitled to live in a safe community. The violence against our citizens, and our law enforcement, must be brought to an end.

The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots, are law-abiding African-American residents who live in these communities. It is their jobs, housing markets, schools and economic conditions that will suffer – and the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration."
Trump: We Need A National Anti-Crime Effort Based On Rudy Giuliani's Success In New York




What possible response can Obama or his coterie of supporters raise???

lol

Trump the idiot – Obama isn’t running for anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you think the Constitution is a suicide pact?

That is a pointless platitude. Ending stop and frisk policies has nothing to do with 'suicide' pacts. It is directly against the constitution. Should you believe that your rights protected by the constitution are in need of infringement then the proper solution is NOT to ignore it - it is to get it changed to reflect that need.


You either support the constitution and follow it (and if you want this to be a free nation you must) or you agree with the liberal interpretation of the constitution being a living document that can be re-interpreted to mean whatever you want. Don't hide behind the 'suicide' pack platitude - that is for the weak minded.

Where does the Constitution deny authority to the police to stop individuals deemed suspicious,suggesting carrying an illegal weapon?

It doesn't.

Yes it does. The constitution protects people from the state simply stopping perfectly law abiding citizens without cause. Interestingly enough you cite a case that states stop and frisk is not constitutional:

But, I can education you on the issue:

"In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
Ibid.

briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity

That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion. It simply allows the police the power to stop anyone at any time and search them even when there is literally no evidence or suspicion of a crime. THAT is what made those stop illegal as that is exactly how the policy was implemented. Should there be a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the 'stop and frisk' policy is irrelevant - the police already have the power to stop and search the individual in question. The only purpose of the policy was to extend those searches to individuals where a reasonable suspicion does not exist.

As for "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"....
The constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.

No, it actually does not. Under that silly definition, the government can suspend any and all rights whenever it feels like it because it knows what is best for you and can keep you safe. The PEOPLE must balance those restrictions with the need for survival and then CHANGE the constitution when it is necessary.

When did you start believing in the 'living and breathing' constitution political chick?

1. "That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion."
False.

Just because you say it is false does not make it so. It is a FACT that the policy does not require resonable suspicion as that is why it was struck.

2. I explained the meaning of "The Constitutioin is not a suicide pact."
I provided the Supreme Court Decision that provides police with the authority to stop those whom they deem suspicious.

There are folks for whom reality is not a factor in their world views....and you appear to be one.

Personal insults, the last bastion of those without an argument. try again. I explained the problem with the case you cited.

3. I wonder if you would care to explain, and address the following:

a. "Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population.

Blacks are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean.

Who is killing them?

Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement



b. And this....

"Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses.

Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime.

[Don't even bother looking for Asian crime statistics.]

These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned tominority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.

c. The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'

Explain or address what? None of that is material to the discussion at hand. I have no issues with the fact that black people are stopped more than other races. I have no issue with the fact that police have a larger presence in high crime arias as they should and certainly do not care what the race of the individuals in those neighborhoods are. None of that is the problem with stop and frisk. The problem is that we have a constitution that protects the rights of Americans and that includes the protection from the state simply stopping you and performing a search without just cause.

You still refuse to acknowledge that inconvenient fact.

Any 'reasonable suspicion' in the above?

Nope, there is no reasonable suspicion above. It applies to all people and reasonable suspicion does not mean that a cop can stop and search you simply because of who you are without any evidence of a crime. You essentially just said that being black is enough evidence to warrant a search. That is not just asinine but it is a big government position that would give the state the ability to completely disregard your rights at virtually any time.

"The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'"

Yet...your response is "there is no reasonable suspicion above."


There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See

 

[PoliticalChic]

OMG!!!

An attack on the first black President....Barack Hussein Obama!

This speech today can be seen as nothing less:



"This is a national crisis, and it is the job of the next President to work with our governors and mayors to address this crisis and save African-American lives.

Last year, we saw a 17% rise in violent crime in our fifty largest cities. Homicides are up nearly 50% in Washington, D.C. and more than 60% in Baltimore.

More than 3,000 have been shot in Chicago so far this year alone.

Nationwide, approximately 60% of murder victims under the age of 22 are African-American.

Every single American in this country is entitled to live in a safe community. The violence against our citizens, and our law enforcement, must be brought to an end.

The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots, are law-abiding African-American residents who live in these communities. It is their jobs, housing markets, schools and economic conditions that will suffer – and the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration."
Trump: We Need A National Anti-Crime Effort Based On Rudy Giuliani's Success In New York




What possible response can Obama or his coterie of supporters raise???

lol

Trump the idiot – Obama isn’t running for anything.

OMG!!!

An attack on the first black President....Barack Hussein Obama!

This speech today can be seen as nothing less:



"This is a national crisis, and it is the job of the next President to work with our governors and mayors to address this crisis and save African-American lives.

Last year, we saw a 17% rise in violent crime in our fifty largest cities. Homicides are up nearly 50% in Washington, D.C. and more than 60% in Baltimore.

More than 3,000 have been shot in Chicago so far this year alone.

Nationwide, approximately 60% of murder victims under the age of 22 are African-American.

Every single American in this country is entitled to live in a safe community. The violence against our citizens, and our law enforcement, must be brought to an end.

The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots, are law-abiding African-American residents who live in these communities. It is their jobs, housing markets, schools and economic conditions that will suffer – and the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration."
Trump: We Need A National Anti-Crime Effort Based On Rudy Giuliani's Success In New York




What possible response can Obama or his coterie of supporters raise???

lol

Trump the idiot – Obama isn’t running for anything.

I was tempted to write 'you can't be that stupid'....


..but, obviously, you can and are.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is a pointless platitude. Ending stop and frisk policies has nothing to do with 'suicide' pacts. It is directly against the constitution. Should you believe that your rights protected by the constitution are in need of infringement then the proper solution is NOT to ignore it - it is to get it changed to reflect that need.


You either support the constitution and follow it (and if you want this to be a free nation you must) or you agree with the liberal interpretation of the constitution being a living document that can be re-interpreted to mean whatever you want. Don't hide behind the 'suicide' pack platitude - that is for the weak minded.

Where does the Constitution deny authority to the police to stop individuals deemed suspicious,suggesting carrying an illegal weapon?

It doesn't.

Yes it does. The constitution protects people from the state simply stopping perfectly law abiding citizens without cause. Interestingly enough you cite a case that states stop and frisk is not constitutional:

But, I can education you on the issue:

"In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
Ibid.

briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity

That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion. It simply allows the police the power to stop anyone at any time and search them even when there is literally no evidence or suspicion of a crime. THAT is what made those stop illegal as that is exactly how the policy was implemented. Should there be a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the 'stop and frisk' policy is irrelevant - the police already have the power to stop and search the individual in question. The only purpose of the policy was to extend those searches to individuals where a reasonable suspicion does not exist.

As for "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"....
The constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.

No, it actually does not. Under that silly definition, the government can suspend any and all rights whenever it feels like it because it knows what is best for you and can keep you safe. The PEOPLE must balance those restrictions with the need for survival and then CHANGE the constitution when it is necessary.

When did you start believing in the 'living and breathing' constitution political chick?

1. "That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion."
False.

Just because you say it is false does not make it so. It is a FACT that the policy does not require resonable suspicion as that is why it was struck.

2. I explained the meaning of "The Constitutioin is not a suicide pact."
I provided the Supreme Court Decision that provides police with the authority to stop those whom they deem suspicious.

There are folks for whom reality is not a factor in their world views....and you appear to be one.

Personal insults, the last bastion of those without an argument. try again. I explained the problem with the case you cited.

3. I wonder if you would care to explain, and address the following:

a. "Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population.

Blacks are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean.

Who is killing them?

Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement



b. And this....

"Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses.

Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime.

[Don't even bother looking for Asian crime statistics.]

These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned tominority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.

c. The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'

Explain or address what? None of that is material to the discussion at hand. I have no issues with the fact that black people are stopped more than other races. I have no issue with the fact that police have a larger presence in high crime arias as they should and certainly do not care what the race of the individuals in those neighborhoods are. None of that is the problem with stop and frisk. The problem is that we have a constitution that protects the rights of Americans and that includes the protection from the state simply stopping you and performing a search without just cause.

You still refuse to acknowledge that inconvenient fact.

Any 'reasonable suspicion' in the above?

Nope, there is no reasonable suspicion above. It applies to all people and reasonable suspicion does not mean that a cop can stop and search you simply because of who you are without any evidence of a crime. You essentially just said that being black is enough evidence to warrant a search. That is not just asinine but it is a big government position that would give the state the ability to completely disregard your rights at virtually any time.

"The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'"

Yet...your response is "there is no reasonable suspicion above."


There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See

And here you are repeating a statement that I already agreed with and have no problem with. None of the above has anything to do with my contention because I acknowledge those facts and agreed with your assessment of them. You are trying to hide behind those facts so that you do not have to address the actual point which has nothing to do with what you stated above.

Would you care to try again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where does the Constitution deny authority to the police to stop individuals deemed suspicious,suggesting carrying an illegal weapon?

It doesn't.

Yes it does. The constitution protects people from the state simply stopping perfectly law abiding citizens without cause. Interestingly enough you cite a case that states stop and frisk is not constitutional:

But, I can education you on the issue:

"In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[2] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous".[3]"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
Ibid.

briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity

That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion. It simply allows the police the power to stop anyone at any time and search them even when there is literally no evidence or suspicion of a crime. THAT is what made those stop illegal as that is exactly how the policy was implemented. Should there be a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the 'stop and frisk' policy is irrelevant - the police already have the power to stop and search the individual in question. The only purpose of the policy was to extend those searches to individuals where a reasonable suspicion does not exist.

As for "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"....
The constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.

No, it actually does not. Under that silly definition, the government can suspend any and all rights whenever it feels like it because it knows what is best for you and can keep you safe. The PEOPLE must balance those restrictions with the need for survival and then CHANGE the constitution when it is necessary.

When did you start believing in the 'living and breathing' constitution political chick?

1. "That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion."
False.

Just because you say it is false does not make it so. It is a FACT that the policy does not require resonable suspicion as that is why it was struck.

2. I explained the meaning of "The Constitutioin is not a suicide pact."
I provided the Supreme Court Decision that provides police with the authority to stop those whom they deem suspicious.

There are folks for whom reality is not a factor in their world views....and you appear to be one.

Personal insults, the last bastion of those without an argument. try again. I explained the problem with the case you cited.

3. I wonder if you would care to explain, and address the following:

a. "Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population.

Blacks are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean.

Who is killing them?

Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement



b. And this....

"Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses.

Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime.

[Don't even bother looking for Asian crime statistics.]

These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned tominority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.

c. The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'

Explain or address what? None of that is material to the discussion at hand. I have no issues with the fact that black people are stopped more than other races. I have no issue with the fact that police have a larger presence in high crime arias as they should and certainly do not care what the race of the individuals in those neighborhoods are. None of that is the problem with stop and frisk. The problem is that we have a constitution that protects the rights of Americans and that includes the protection from the state simply stopping you and performing a search without just cause.

You still refuse to acknowledge that inconvenient fact.

Any 'reasonable suspicion' in the above?

Nope, there is no reasonable suspicion above. It applies to all people and reasonable suspicion does not mean that a cop can stop and search you simply because of who you are without any evidence of a crime. You essentially just said that being black is enough evidence to warrant a search. That is not just asinine but it is a big government position that would give the state the ability to completely disregard your rights at virtually any time.

"The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'"

Yet...your response is "there is no reasonable suspicion above."


There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See

And here you are repeating a statement that I already agreed with and have no problem with. None of the above has anything to do with my contention because I acknowledge those facts and agreed with your assessment of them. You are trying to hide behind those facts so that you do not have to address the actual point which has nothing to do with what you stated above.

Would you care to try again?

You are denying the most successful regimen against the criminal population that preys on their own folks, and the ability of trained police to make the sort of judgments that enable said regimen.

That's absurd.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes it does. The constitution protects people from the state simply stopping perfectly law abiding citizens without cause. Interestingly enough you cite a case that states stop and frisk is not constitutional:
briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity

That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion. It simply allows the police the power to stop anyone at any time and search them even when there is literally no evidence or suspicion of a crime. THAT is what made those stop illegal as that is exactly how the policy was implemented. Should there be a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the 'stop and frisk' policy is irrelevant - the police already have the power to stop and search the individual in question. The only purpose of the policy was to extend those searches to individuals where a reasonable suspicion does not exist.
No, it actually does not. Under that silly definition, the government can suspend any and all rights whenever it feels like it because it knows what is best for you and can keep you safe. The PEOPLE must balance those restrictions with the need for survival and then CHANGE the constitution when it is necessary.

When did you start believing in the 'living and breathing' constitution political chick?

1. "That is the problem with stop and frisk policy. It does not require any reasonable suspicion."
False.

Just because you say it is false does not make it so. It is a FACT that the policy does not require resonable suspicion as that is why it was struck.

2. I explained the meaning of "The Constitutioin is not a suicide pact."
I provided the Supreme Court Decision that provides police with the authority to stop those whom they deem suspicious.

There are folks for whom reality is not a factor in their world views....and you appear to be one.

Personal insults, the last bastion of those without an argument. try again. I explained the problem with the case you cited.

3. I wonder if you would care to explain, and address the following:

a. "Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population.

Blacks are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean.

Who is killing them?

Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement



b. And this....

"Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses.

Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime.

[Don't even bother looking for Asian crime statistics.]

These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned tominority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.

c. The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'

Explain or address what? None of that is material to the discussion at hand. I have no issues with the fact that black people are stopped more than other races. I have no issue with the fact that police have a larger presence in high crime arias as they should and certainly do not care what the race of the individuals in those neighborhoods are. None of that is the problem with stop and frisk. The problem is that we have a constitution that protects the rights of Americans and that includes the protection from the state simply stopping you and performing a search without just cause.

You still refuse to acknowledge that inconvenient fact.

Any 'reasonable suspicion' in the above?

Nope, there is no reasonable suspicion above. It applies to all people and reasonable suspicion does not mean that a cop can stop and search you simply because of who you are without any evidence of a crime. You essentially just said that being black is enough evidence to warrant a search. That is not just asinine but it is a big government position that would give the state the ability to completely disregard your rights at virtually any time.

"The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

BTW....Brownsville has a population about 20% less than Bay Ridge....but 'the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn'"

Yet...your response is "there is no reasonable suspicion above."


There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See

And here you are repeating a statement that I already agreed with and have no problem with. None of the above has anything to do with my contention because I acknowledge those facts and agreed with your assessment of them. You are trying to hide behind those facts so that you do not have to address the actual point which has nothing to do with what you stated above.

Would you care to try again?

You are denying the most successful regimen against the criminal population that preys on their own folks, and the ability of trained police to make the sort of judgments that enable said regimen.

That's absurd.

So that is a no, you are not going to address the points. Not really surprised.

What I am denying is the state the right to ignore the constitution. It is saddening to me to see so many 'conservatives' that claim to uphold the constitution ignore it just like the left does. The only real difference between the right and the left is what particular parts of the constitution they wish to ignore. They all lead to government largess and the abolition of rights in the end though.